(17-11-2014 03:37 PM)Chas Wrote: You still have not made any argument as to why an AR-15 is not a good hunting rifle. As I pointed out, there are magazine size limits for hunting, so 'big magazine' is not an argument.

But they can be loaded with a large magazine.
There are many guns that don't use detachable magazines or have a limited capacity.

And if a large magazine is illegal?

Quote:

(17-11-2014 03:37 PM)Chas Wrote: Coyotes.
The top one is a semi-automatic rifle in .223 Rem. with a five-round magazine.

I'm unsure.
Can the rifle have a larger magazine fitted?

Yes, but it is sold with a 5-shot magazine.
In Massachusetts, the magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

And the magazine is so ridiculously simple it's almost impossible to regulate. In Canada, many magazines are made legal simply by the addition of a pin. After purchase, one may simply remove the pin. Not legally, but monitoring and enforcing something like that is about 427 times harder than regulating the distribution of pot, and that worked out marvelously.

A friend of mine who had an AK disassembled and brought back from Iraq (to Vermont) had it converted to belt fed, a relatively quick and easy modification for a gunsmith, bypassing the need for the magazine entirely.

All these rules that could theoretically be beneficial in some way lose their relevance when you realize just how impossible to enforce they are for those with a desire to ignore them.

(18-11-2014 07:47 AM)Chas Wrote: "In March 2013 during budget negotiations, Cuomo and lawmakers agreed to continue to allow 10-round magazines to be sold, but could still only be loaded with 7 cartridges."

Welcome to my world....How does Cuomo think that makes any sense? So you can buy a 10 round mag, but you can't fill it up.

Because of their ignorance of most things firearm, they had no idea that no one made 7-round magazines for most pistols, the smallest typically being 10 rounds.

So instead of making the law realistic, they made this bizarro-world decision.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(15-11-2014 07:01 AM)Chas Wrote: Can you please define for us what "very powerful, very dangerous assault weapons" are? As opposed to assault weapons that aren't very powerful and/or very dangerous? And what the criteria are?

I'll happily agree that the anti-gun people have misinformed people on what constitutes "dangerous assault weapons" and thanks to the conversation between Stevil* and yourself I have a firmer grasp on what constitues an "Assault Weapon" in the first place and I think I have a slightly better handle on the whole gun safety thing. So I'd like to ask a different question:

In places where it is legal to own fully automatic weaponry, say a AK varient because I'd rather avoid looking up a specific example, the person who has purchased the weapon and justifies it as being for personal and home defense.
Are they being disengenious: Is the purpose for which they purchased the weapon fulfilled as well by another weapon that is less efficent at harming people ("less dangerous**") as well filled by a pistol?

At what point is a gun overkill or enough for the purposes for which it was purchased?

No I'm still not sure if I'd take issue with somebody purcasing the AK thing (small reference pool) for the sake of owning the AK thing as I'm questioning the hypothetical persons stated goal and the appropriate tool to fufil the role not the motive.

Also: I need to read more than the first couple of paragraphs on one of the first webpages if "researching" something is going to matter.

Hollow points are covered by international agreement but incendiaries aren't. Why?

*I only just got that pun. Funny.
**I will happily say in this hypothetical that the person who owns the weapon will never misuse it, handle it improperly, or accidently harm somebody with it.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

(20-11-2014 09:02 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote: I am a dick for not getting back too this stuff sooner.

(15-11-2014 07:01 AM)Chas Wrote: Can you please define for us what "very powerful, very dangerous assault weapons" are? As opposed to assault weapons that aren't very powerful and/or very dangerous? And what the criteria are?

I'll happily agree that the anti-gun people have misinformed people on what constitutes "dangerous assault weapons" and thanks to the conversation between Stevil* and yourself I have a firmer grasp on what constitues an "Assault Weapon" in the first place and I think I have a slightly better handle on the whole gun safety thing. So I'd like to ask a different question:

In places where it is legal to own fully automatic weaponry, say a AK varient because I'd rather avoid looking up a specific example,

Quote:the person who has purchased the weapon and justifies it as being for personal and home defense.

Except no one does.

Quote:Are they being disengenious: Is the purpose for which they purchased the weapon fulfilled as well by another weapon that is less efficent at harming people ("less dangerous**") as well filled by a pistol?

Except no one buys an automatic weapon for those reasons.

Quote:At what point is a gun overkill or enough for the purposes for which it was purchased?

That is a loaded question.

You will need to be more specific. Your example above fails to be realistic.
There are firearms that are suitable for one purpose and not well-suited for another.

Quote:No I'm still not sure if I'd take issue with somebody purcasing the AK thing (small reference pool) for the sake of owning the AK thing as I'm questioning the hypothetical persons stated goal and the appropriate tool to fufil the role not the motive.

Again, you need to be more specific.

Quote:Also: I need to read more than the first couple of paragraphs on one of the first webpages if "researching" something is going to matter.

Hollow points are covered by international agreement but incendiaries aren't. Why?

Incendiary munitions are not considered anti-personnel, while hollow-point bullets are. It was determined by international treaty that expanding bullets were not humane. Amusingly, it was the Germans who claimed that their use 'violated the laws of war'.

Wikipedia Wrote:The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibited the use in international warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body. This is often incorrectly believed to be prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but it significantly predates those conventions, and is in fact a continuance of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams, as well as weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable. NATO members do not use small arms ammunition that is prohibited by the Hague Convention and the United Nations.

Despite the ban on military use, hollow-point bullets are one of the most common types of bullets used by civilians and police, which is due largely to the reduced risk of bystanders being hit by over-penetrating or ricocheted bullets, and the increased speed of incapacitation.

In many jurisdictions, even ones such as the United Kingdom, where expanding ammunition is generally prohibited, it is illegal to hunt certain types of game with ammunition that does not expand. Some target ranges forbid full metal jacket ammunition, due to its greater tendency to damage metal targets and backstops.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.